Tag: law

Last proposition (since I covered 27 with 20).

This one changes which things can be considered "fees" (subject to simple majority votes) and which things can be considered "taxes" (subject to 2/3 majority votes). It's rather nuanced and highly detailed. It's not entirely clear how this change would affect things. So, let's follow the money again.

(The following information is from Ballotpedia.org)

Donors in favor of proposition 26 (requiring certain fees be approved by 2/3 majority rather than simple majority):
Chevron ($3.75 m), Philip Morris ($1.75 m), Anheuser-Busch, Conoco Phillips, MillerCoors, Shell Oil, etc. A bunch of alcohol and oil companies—not exactly selfless saints.

Donors against proposition 26:
California Public Securities Association ($150 k), California School Employees Association ($30 k), California Association of Professional Scientists, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, California Professional Firefighters, California Federation of Teachers, etc.

I believe I'll be voting against proposition 26.

Hoooo-weee. I better get on this since today is Election Day.

Proposition 25 changes the majority needed to pass a budget from 2/3 to simple. I think this is easily summed up with a quote from the provided analysis, "Given the current composition of each house, this would allow members of the Legislature's majority political party to approve a budget bill without the support of any members of the minority party."

The entire bill is centered around letting whichever party holds a simple majority do whatever the heck they want with the budget. That's a big fat "NO" from me.

This one had me stumped at first. Certain tax changes were agreed upon between the legislature and the governor in 2008. These changes included various ways for corporations to finagle their tax burdens. One method being to shift net-operating-losses to previous tax years and get refunds, another being to choose which formula gets used to calculate their taxes (however they want from year to year). Proposition 24 is to repeal those changes before they go into effect and keep the tax law as it was in 2009.

The analysis provided by the state didn't give me any obvious arguments for or against. It ends up in the realm of nuanced business accounting. So I was having a hard time trying to form an opinion on the matter. The paid-for arguments were both sensationalist and lacking any real foundational evidence, so they were of no help.

The next step then, is to follow the money. And here is where the decision became easy.

The following data comes from ballotpedia.org.

In favor of proposition 24 means repealing the new tax laws which created more flexibility in corporations' tax burden. This side has raised over $13 million with donations from such groups as the California Teachers Association, America's Families First, National Education Association, Alliance for a Better California, and the California School Employees Association.

Against proposition 24 means keeping the new tax laws. This side has raised over $14 million with donations from such groups as Viacom, Cisco, Time Warner, Disney, Genentech, FOX, CBS, General Electric, DirecTV, and Pfizer. All groups respected for their selfless dedication to helping the average joe.

That pretty much sealed my vote. If it's worth over $1 million a piece to these companies then I can only assume it's because they each intend to benefit by more than that. And my experience is that the companies on that list (and pretty much all companies) have never sought to reduce their prices and help out their customers simply because they ended up with extra cash in their pockets.

I need to get moving on finishing up these posts. 4 more propositions to do, and then I still need to actually look at candidates.

Prop 23 is an attempt to indefinitely postpone implementing the air pollution control law enacted in 2006. The idea is that companies won't need to worry about changing their environmental impact until unemployment drops below 5.5% for at least 4 straight quarters.

At face value it might seem like a reasonable position if you believe that allowing companies to pollute is an effective way to create jobs. However, the secret exposed by the state-provided analysis is that since 1970 there has only been ~30 quarters of unemployment below 5.5% which occurred during 3 separate time periods separated by several years each (cumulatively, ~18% of the quarters since 1970).

Since 1970, the record low of unemployment looks to have been about 5% according to the graph. So this proposition basically says, "We'll promise to stop polluting the next time things are going absolutely perfect—as good as the peak of the dot-com bubble, and as good as the peak of the housing bubble." I don't really see that as an acceptable compromise.

Had they put forth the idea of postponing until unemployment dropped below the average of the last 40 years (which appears to be around 7.5-8.0%) maybe we'd have something to talk about. But this just looks like big companies trying to make an end run around the law.

It seems like every time there are new regulations on an industry companies within that industry cry about how it's going to destroy them. Yet, every time, they seem to find a new way to make record profits within 5 years. I'm not buying the idea that these air pollution control laws are going to destroy any industries. I'm quite confident they'll find ways of abiding by the new regulations and still be profitable. Not only keeping the companies wealthy, but also providing cleaner air for everyone.

I plan to vote against proposition 23.

This one is described as "Prohibits the State from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services."

I will admit, I'm not really sure what the point of this proposition is. Based on my reading it seems that normally the State takes the luxury of borrowing funds collected by local governments during the part of the year when State revenue is low. But those funds have to be paid back.

So, as far as I can tell it's mainly a case of people who feel that the State is meddling in local affairs and don't like it. Of course, it seems like if this passes then suddenly the State needs to find another source of money or cut more services and this makes the existing budget less flexible.

The printed arguments, for and against, are both sensationalist drivel. So it's hard to get an idea of what's really behind this proposition.

At the moment I'm leaning towards "no."